(Also, that graphic -- which has been making the rounds for a while now -- is the visual version of "I hate everything and everyone and now I'm going to apply that to this Myers-Briggs thing I've heard about." Bah. )

(Also, that graphic -- which has been making the rounds for a while now -- is the visual version of "I hate everything and everyone and now I'm going to apply that to this Myers-Briggs thing I've heard about." Bah. )

First I've seen of it and it's slightly relevant to the thread so I figured I'd post it.

In truth, though, that's less about pretending to know you well enough to type you than it is knowing that this particular forum really could be used as a test for the iNtuitive preference. There's something about this game that draws N types, so the membership of this forum reflects that.

Of course an individual (you, for example) is whatever they are; you can't guess that a randomly selected person who's a member of a group must exhibit all the most common characteristics of that group -- that's the definition of stereotyping.

But it is allowable to say that, until tested, the odds that any randomly selected individual from a group will express at least one of the most common characteristics of that group are pretty good.

So until shown otherwise, if I reached into a hat and pulled out a name from the top 50 posters in this forum, I think my odds would be better than 50/50 that that person would tend toward the N preference. Thus, an IxTJ who hangs out here is most likely going to be an INTJ.

I took the test again and I'm still IxTJ; it swayed S again this time, but <5% so.

Apparently I go both ways.

Ar-ar.

But seriously, personality-wise that's not a Bad Thing at all. The N/S split is the single most important differentiator for innate motivation preferences; to reliably be pretty evenly balanced on that measure suggests an ability to understand and get value from both the concrete, realistic world of Sensing and the abstract, meaning-filled world of iNtuition. That's an advantage someone with his head in the clouds, or who's highly focused on scoring material wealth, doesn't have.

I am a little irritated by that N. I demand solid arguments and proof most the time ... also from myself. I never take a strong position based on a gut feeling.
Or am I just misreading this letter? (Got a solid 1 in the second test.)
The second test is very unconfident about the J (=0.37)

Soooo basically the only thing that test really told me is that I am an I-type. *slow clap*
.... what a surprise. ^^

I am a little irritated by that N. I demand solid arguments and proof most the time ... also from myself. I never take a strong position based on a gut feeling.
Or am I just misreading this letter? (Got a solid 1 in the second test.)

It's always worth mentioning that most online "tests" are badly constructed -- they run you through a bunch of forced-choice questions then demand that you "create a profile" (to get your email address) before revealing what you "are."

A few aren't completely awful. The 16personalities one isn't entirely junk, BUT I think they've made it worse by tacking on the Assertive/Turbulent thing which is nothing more than a renamed version of the Neuroticism index from the Big Five model.

Really, the best way to see which type pattern you're closest to (notice that I don't phrase this as "what type you are" because no one is merely a pattern) is to just read the descriptions from a good source and point to the one that seems most right. There's nothing so scientific about any of the online tests that make them more accurate than this.

One of the best sources of MB type descriptions I've found is David Keirsey's Please Understand Me II, but the original Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Myers is fine.

Now, that said, the iNuition/Sensing split -- the best way to think about this is not so much "How do I decide what's right/true?" which is more a function of the Thinking/Feeling preference, but rather "Who needs to approve of my choices?" iNtuition (N) says, "trust yourself"; Sensing (S) says, "trust the world and other people."

For most people in the normal range of human psychological function, this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Most people put some trust in their own opinions, and most people put some stock in the opinions of other people.

But most people do have a preference here. Some of us naturally resist arguments from authority; we want objective evidence that satisfies us personally and we're prepared to be the only person in the world who believes a thing if we're sure it's right. At the same time, some of us are uncomfortable without the stability of traditions and hierarchy and relationships and group membership; these are systems that help us know our choices are probably good.

In all seriousness, thanks for the very comprehensive thoughts and links. I went through this huge personality test phase in like, middle school but then didn't touch it for years and years, and MBTI is basically all I knew. There's a bunch of stuff to sink my teeth into here; I'll have a look. Very useful!

I should maybe add one more thing, which is that the human mind remains mysterious. Anyone claiming to have The Answer that explains everyone's behavior is, at best, selling something.

Honesty about that makes it hard to talk about personality models in a way that seems plausible. It all gets hedged with "we think" and "there may be" and so on, leaving most people to conclude that yeah, all this stuff really is about as accurate as fortune cookies and astrology.

I think it's an analog spectrum. Stuff like astrology and Tarot at one end, followed by blood type personality typing, then (IMO) Freudian "talking cure" psychoanalysis, then at a distance from those and into the "useful" range come high-level models based on self-reported data (MBTI, OCEAN, MMPI), then there's the low-level behavioral psych stuff (the ones whose effects are independently replicated), then there's pharmaceutical medical neuroscience, and then finally somewhere past that -- but still not near the "absolutely certain and useful" endpoint -- is MRI-type brain scan stuff that shows reliably visible brain activity associated with particular mental states.

But there is nothing even remotely close to a single model of human cognition that effectively combines all the systems over on the "useful" end of this spectrum.

So call me skeptical of anyone who talks about psychological concepts as though any part of it is certain and obvious. I don't expect to see Hari Seldon anytime soon.